Originally Posted by Mustard
Hypotheticals count for nothing I'm afraid, only results, and Vilas' 1977 results were clearly better than Borg's.
There is nothing hypothetical about Borg's better results than those of Vilas in 1977. I am not sure where you see better results by Vilas.
A hypothetical could be a "would be/could be" argument. For example, if Borg missed several months of playing time and I argued that he would have beaten Vilas had he been healthy and therefore was better, then I would be presenting a fallacious argument.
There is no such hypothetical here. Borg did play and did play better.
The fallacy here is on the side of those who argue for Vilas. Actually there are two fallacies:
a) the fallacious value allotted for Vilas's mickey mouse tourney results - such as his wholly irrelevant clay court streak, obtained by playing mostly weak opponents
b) the fallacious value allotted to the French open, which had many important players missing, including Borg
The French Open was not consistently attended in the 1970s. It was not in and of itself an automatic indicator of clay court superiority. The same thing happened in the early 1970s, when Jan Kodes won two titles at Roland Garros, while the far superior Laver and Rosewall were off playing WTT. However, Laver and Rosewall had other red clay results that supported their superiority over Kodes.